Re: [bmwg] Applied review comments (from Luis M. Contreras) of draft-rosa-bmwg-vnfbench
"Luis M. Contreras" <contreras.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 10 October 2019 16:21 UTC
Return-Path: <contreras.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1001E120113 for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 09:21:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7S9gNcZ9eMVQ for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 09:21:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-x72a.google.com (mail-qk1-x72a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 114C41200EF for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 09:21:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-x72a.google.com with SMTP id y144so6137858qkb.7 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 09:21:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=alEO/EEjfbys9ctTICCt8S+1e0PFJQyo3vo5uU27mJE=; b=NOzA1J9ZKW4G3Hy7E36bgo4rCO2R2e23eaEfdygHdGG5uZ4jcaHUW4Sr+Z5APZ2rd+ AFi7ssGBv0DogqhxjmGR+mDr2C8pBBHEnTHpD0hlz9tscmaZOdeJLAmRha7lALWDcDA6 JNhINXD7Znemu8Ba7jm2V0QQwaen5FjoG0W1wrPgsVI4JiSqEbJStEWDk7AL28XXYi3l joIhsunqDEf1unRGelfGwNrdRjpYoxlZhJzNYSxqyxwmAeHGIA0f+sLn0ZQ6MJBFlH7c j1VW4NPXudPw5HqsbkiL3iPdlTwHSTInPgweN0epwc8/72nT3n3rJQjdb4mMdtMUC4Vh r3lw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=alEO/EEjfbys9ctTICCt8S+1e0PFJQyo3vo5uU27mJE=; b=fbFGJsu00p8CVvwP+B7ia5tyr5CeW0ZumG2LRhCBJmMAvALlZ630WK+aJnJzLaIujc mEtYCOck/wUKV1p18sORkRFsQSiu3oJNtIX2jMPJxuJnTq1GjHavAPCpWYQq/qJ6uhFR q8qzHqEHGLITo/X2teH/jfQkPTmtKzUyMzDwpSQAj7hhY/Ol+iNJDyBUCFxN4VLHLz7a kjvXZggc45hmbQC0GO43aru46WhiPOCcOVZwPoJPcwdtj6BhDHV48DyTbjolcIDcQ8K/ FCWP1Q0zEgwqz/62Dys0owNVF/UOqOqYA3LZSxOfnLX1pfKtVk+2slrAHeZmwLRMdc2O v77g==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVjVobzhnhVQNwrRe04dzys2lo0TBKW0pQBCg++YphXfz1d7S8+ f+zOArLYPvaYNo77cMymrX9hKdubMzs0vXa0iH4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyqcOLLJr3ELaZj2BMV+jvDIL2oNFOPJW9y+YeGnv5CC6s/65Pob1nw8rFp6IPl/ZhiTOjSufOf/BozXvuS3o4=
X-Received: by 2002:a37:484b:: with SMTP id v72mr11040115qka.206.1570724507870; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 09:21:47 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <mailman.83.1564599616.17604.bmwg@ietf.org> <CAD-XRrXemqdPHTn2gwBcMN72fmJUiz1=CMUsnRoNE2GPgOWw3A@mail.gmail.com> <CAD-XRrULZ6O=JVCbh=8Cg46EvF5HyzDKJ3piw_LAwC=xB-nifw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD-XRrULZ6O=JVCbh=8Cg46EvF5HyzDKJ3piw_LAwC=xB-nifw@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Luis M. Contreras" <contreras.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 18:21:36 +0200
Message-ID: <CAE4dcxknnHXOMnMVFih7cD75x3rEouq+wPZJ=0cd+XQt1sAx3Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Raphael Vicente Rosa <raphaelvrosa@gmail.com>
Cc: bmwg@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000054ea3d059490cc5a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/ziTZpzn2Yua9XtKd52J5d8aGpMk>
Subject: Re: [bmwg] Applied review comments (from Luis M. Contreras) of draft-rosa-bmwg-vnfbench
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group <bmwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bmwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:bmwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 16:21:52 -0000
Hi, I skipped to answer this mail. My apologies. Thanks for your answers. I'm happy with that. As some points are yet open, expecting to be part of the new version, I will take a new look to the draft once it is published. Thanks! Luis El jue., 29 ago. 2019 a las 15:36, Raphael Vicente Rosa (< raphaelvrosa@gmail.com>) escribió: > Dear Luis Contreras, > > We appreciate the comments provided for the draft, which follow answered > below. We already updated the draft based on your comments (find the last > version here https://github.com/raphaelvrosa/vnf-bench-meth). However we > still are running tests and updating the draft (specially the VNF-PP > section) before committing it to the version -05. > When available we will post it here and we would appreciate if you could > contribute with more comments. > > .- it would be good to have some text in the draft indicating how this > benchmarking methodology relates with the activities in ETSI NFV TST > working group > *Answer: *We highlighted in the "Considerations" section the work in ETSI > TST as complimentary example of benchmarking and measurement models for VNF > benchmarking methodology. > We are currently analyzing the ETSI TST specifications looking for common > denominators with the draft. In general, ETSI TST has no focus on > automation of VNF benchmarking methodologies, however presents > methods/metrics that can be referenced by VNF benchmarking methodologies. > > > .- an special case for benchmarking could be the redundancy. There are > different schemas of redundancy (e.g., VNFs with active / standby VNFCs, > M:1 redundant VNFCs, non-redundant VNFCs, etc). Would the redundancy be > part of the scope of the draft/methodology that you describe? And if so, > how this could be included as part of the descriptors / setup that you > describe? > *Answer: *In general, we consider VNFCs as black boxes, part of a VNF. In > such case, different VNF images (specified by version/release) might be > provided for benchmarking, differing among them the internal redundancy > expected from the Tester point of view. > If needed, monitoring points need to be specified for each VNFC in the VNF > benchmarking methodology. > We recognize the particular case for Redundancy – defining special > conditions for it described in a new document item 6.4.2. > > .- Can we in general terms assume that Agents represent active probing > while Monitors represent passive probing? If so, it would be probably good > to make it explicit > *Answer: *We highlighted the Agent/Monitor definitions referring to > active/passive probing. > > /Specific comments/ > .- Section 5, bullet on VNF (after Fig. 1): with relation to the VNFCs, > can be those components tested individually or should them be always tested > as part of the comprehensive VNF? > *Answer: *We consider that VNFs are benchmarked as they are, i.e., VNFCs > are black boxes that make the minimum set of VNF functionalities available. > Such statement is reinforced in the subsection Scenario/Nodes, item 6.1.5.1. > > .- Figure 1: the Monitor box, as depicted, it is not too much clear. The > boundaries of the box overlap with the boundaries of VNF component and > Execution environment. This could be done on purpose, but the figure > becomes a bit confusing, at least to me. Additionally, I can see arrows > to/from the agents, but no arrows to/from the monitor. From/to where the > information is send to Monitor box? > *Answer: *We clarified the Fig. 1 with Monitoring interfaces well-defined > for infra/VNF (SUT as a whole) – explainining in details the interfaces. > > .- Section 6.1: should it be included information about the kind of VIM, > MANO, etc to use for on-boarding, managing and running the VNF? Should the > NMS of the VNF part of the tests (maybe assisting on the > configuration/collection of information)? Should it be also declared the > usage of VM, containers, etc in the setup? Where? > *Answer: *We added a clarification statement in the end of item 6.1.4.. > In that section, name "Environment", we propose the Manager component > realizes specific interfaces to a MANO system, so it can deploy the VNF-BD > scenario. The draft leaves that part open for implementation, not > constrained to any particular technology. > Reference details of VNF-BD deployment (on-boarding, etc) are provided in > the VNF-PP, as we intend to keep VNF-BD technology agnostic. As the VNF-PP > contains the deployment settings, those must be detailed there, describing > the VIM/MANO templates, for instance. > However, we are still investiganting if an interface from the Manager > component to the VNF or the VNFM should be provided for VNF benchmarking > methodologies. > > .- Section 6.3.1: should it be included there the duration of the tests? > *Answer: *In the item "6.3.2. Automated Execution", the automated > execution of benchmarking tests depend on the fixed time limit specified in > VNF-BD or any specified exit conditions (convergence of metrics values). > Therefore, the duration of tests will depend on the specification of the > VNF-BD Proceedings, i.e., the probers/listener parameters that will execute > the tests. For instance, a simple ping prober could have its execution time > limited by the number of packets to be sent as stimulus. > > .- Section 6.2.2: the VNF processing / Active metrics, are those > equivalent to the kind of metrics can be obtained from a PNF? Any > difference? If not, it could be maybe convenient to reflect that fact since > same metric description could be reused by the operators for performing the > tests (and for comparison, as well) > *Answer: *In general metrics are defined depending on the benchmarking > methodology of a network function, in a virtual or physical implementation > case. > Metrics are specific to the VNF/PNF. VNF metrics can be compared to PNF, > however a VNF benchmarking can have more metrics, and depend on the tools > (probers/listeners) used to benchmark it. Standardization should be clear > on the VNF benchmarking methodology how the metrics are defined and their > source of measurement. > The draft, as focused on benchmarking automation, addresses a VNF-PP > technology agnostic. I.e., any VNF benchmarking methodology can have its > metrics specified in a VNF-PP. Comparison factors can be defined among a > VNF and a PNF if their benchmarking methodology share the same definition > of metrics.. > > .- Section 6..3.2: if the Manager collects all measurements, then it has > to support some kind of interface for information retrieval, hasn’t it? If > so, it could be maybe convenient to reflect it in figure 1 and in the text. > *Answer: *The Manager description was clarified, for instance stating in > Sec. 5: "Manager executes the main configuration, operation, and management > actions to deliver the VNF benchmarking report. Hence, it detains > interfaces open for users interact with the whole benchmarking framework, > realizing, for instance,...". > > .- Section 6.4.3: failure handling can be considered as active or passive > testing? > .- Section 8: during the VNF benchmarking, it could be considered the > running of security tests? For instance DDoS, etc. If so, it could be > mentioned. > *Answer: *The questions above address specific realizations of VNF > benchmarking, which we do not consider, as the draft focus on the VNF > benchmarking automation. For instance, a DDoS could be caused by, or > defined as a particular case of, a VNF benchmarking methodology > specification (e.g., an algorithm running a throughput evaluation at rates > configured as DDoS case). > In the case of failure handling, both conditions could be valid (active > and passive). For instance, while there exists stimulus traffic directed to > the VNF, it is being monitored for malfunctioning. > > /Editorial comments/ > .- The Agent/Prober and Monitor/Listener bullets should be better aligned, > maybe using different levels of bullets and skipping existing space lines > .- section 6.3.2, bullet 1: s/ … compose the all the permutations … / … > compose all the permutations … > .- section 6.4.1, 1st paragraph: s/ … to mitigateside effects … / … to > mitigate side effects … > *Answer: *The draft is going through an extensive and detailed > grammar/spell-check review. We will apply those fixes in version -05. > > Please, let us know if the answers didn't cover the clarification > questions in your comments. > > Sincerely, > The authors > > On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 10:22 AM Raphael Vicente Rosa < > raphaelvrosa@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Luis, thanks a lot for the great review! >> We appreciate the engagement, it sure will help us clarify and improve >> the draft content for the next version, a path for the bmwg adoption. >> >> Best regards, >> (The authors) >> >> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 4:01 PM <bmwg-request@ietf.org> wrote: >> >>> Send bmwg mailing list submissions to >>> bmwg@ietf.org >>> >>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg >>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >>> bmwg-request@ietf.org >>> >>> You can reach the person managing the list at >>> bmwg-owner@ietf.org >>> >>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >>> than "Re: Contents of bmwg digest..." >>> >>> >>> Today's Topics: >>> >>> 1. Review comments of draft-rosa-bmwg-vnfbench (Luis M. Contreras) >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Message: 1 >>> Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 17:33:01 +0200 >>> From: "Luis M. Contreras" <contreras.ietf@gmail.com> >>> To: bmwg@ietf.org >>> Cc: LUIS MIGUEL CONTRERAS MURILLO >>> <luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica..com >>> <luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica.com>> >>> Subject: [bmwg] Review comments of draft-rosa-bmwg-vnfbench >>> Message-ID: >>> <CAE4dcxnUdkm=zmtmy+Ve+G= >>> CFNTAVnasfC6_Oda+yvgxSNxAMg@mail.gmail.com> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> as committed last week during BMWG session, I have performed a review >>> of draft-rosa-bmwg-vnfbench. >>> >>> These are the comments coming from my review. >>> >>> /General comments/ >>> >>> ...- it would be good to have some text in the draft indicating how this >>> benchmarking methodology relates with the activities in ETSI NFV TST >>> working group >>> >>> ...- an special case for benchmarking could be the redundancy. There are >>> different schemas of redundancy (e.g., VNFs with active / standby VNFCs, >>> M:1 redundant VNFCs, non-redundant VNFCs, etc). Would the redundancy be >>> part of the scope of the draft/methodology that you describe? And if so, >>> how this could be included as part of the descriptors / setup that you >>> describe? >>> >>> ...- Can we in general terms assume that Agents represent active probing >>> while Monitors represent passive probing? If so, it would be probably >>> good >>> to make it explicit >>> >>> >>> >>> /Specific comments/ >>> >>> ...- Section 5, bullet on VNF (after Fig. 1): with relation to the >>> VNFCs, can >>> be those components tested individually or should them be always tested >>> as >>> part of the comprehensive VNF? >>> >>> ...- Figure 1: the Monitor box, as depicted, it is not too much clear. >>> The >>> boundaries of the box overlap with the boundaries of VNF component and >>> Execution environment. This could be done on purpose, but the figure >>> becomes a bit confusing, at least to me. Additionally, I can see arrows >>> to/from the agents, but no arrows to/from the monitor. From/to where the >>> information is send to Monitor box? >>> >>> ...- Section 6.1: should it be included information about the kind of >>> VIM, >>> MANO, etc to use for on-boarding, managing and running the VNF? Should >>> the >>> NMS of the VNF part of the tests (maybe assisting on the >>> configuration/collection of information)? Should it be also declared the >>> usage of VM, containers, etc in the setup? Where? >>> >>> ...- Section 6.3.1: should it be included there the duration of the >>> tests? >>> >>> ...- Section 6.2.2: the VNF processing / Active metrics, are those >>> equivalent >>> to the kind of metrics can be obtained from a PNF? Any difference? If >>> not, >>> it could be maybe convenient to reflect that fact since same metric >>> description could be reused by the operators for performing the tests >>> (and >>> for comparison, as well) >>> >>> ...- Section 6.3.2: if the Manager collects all measurements, then it >>> has to >>> support some kind of interface for information retrieval, hasn?t it? If >>> so, >>> it could be maybe convenient to reflect it in figure 1 and in the text. >>> >>> ...- Section 6.4.3: failure handling can be considered as active or >>> passive >>> testing? >>> >>> ...- Section 8: during the VNF benchmarking, it could be considered the >>> running of security tests? For instance DDoS, etc. If so, it could be >>> mentioned. >>> >>> >>> >>> /Editorial comments/ >>> >>> ...- The Agent/Prober and Monitor/Listener bullets should be better >>> aligned, >>> maybe using different levels of bullets and skipping existing space lines >>> >>> ...- section 6.3.2, bullet 1: s/ ? compose the all the permutations ? / ? >>> compose all the permutations ? >>> >>> ...- section 6.4.1, 1st paragraph: s/ ? to mitigateside effects ? / ? to >>> mitigate side effects ? >>> >>> >>> >>> I would like to tahnks the authors for the very good document produced so >>> far. >>> >>> >>> Best regards >>> >>> >>> Luis >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ___________________________________________ >>> Luis M. Contreras >>> contreras.ietf@gmail.com >>> luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica.com >>> Global CTIO unit / Telefonica >>> -------------- next part -------------- >>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >>> URL: < >>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bmwg/attachments/20190731/85826251/attachment.html >>> > >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Subject: Digest Footer >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> bmwg mailing list >>> bmwg@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> End of bmwg Digest, Vol 178, Issue 14 >>> ************************************* >>> >> _______________________________________________ > bmwg mailing list > bmwg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg > -- ___________________________________________ Luis M. Contreras contreras.ietf@gmail.com luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica.com Global CTIO unit / Telefonica
- Re: [bmwg] Review comments of draft-rosa-bmwg-vnf… Raphael Vicente Rosa
- Re: [bmwg] Applied review comments (from Luis M. … Raphael Vicente Rosa
- Re: [bmwg] Applied review comments (from Luis M. … Luis M. Contreras